I would prefer consistency, but as you pointed out this for users will be another upgrade concer , so may be for a 5.3 it is better to mantain the zero-based style.
On 18 November 2017 at 19:18, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > Another thing that comes up is parameters and native queries. In native > queries, all 3 forms are valid: named, jpa-ordinal and jdbc-style. > > Again historically all positional (jdbc-style) parameters are zero-based. > This open up the problem of different bases depending on whether jpa-style > or jdbc-style is used. E.g. > > session.createNativeQuery( "... where a.name = ?" ).setParameter( 0, > "Steve" ); > session.createNativeQuery( "... where a.name = ?1" ).setParameter( 1, > "Steve" ); > > To me its a bit odd to have these different bases. I understand that > because they are different "parameter strategies" it is easy enough to > explain to a user the difference. But I wonder if that is something we > should make consistent to just always assume an ordinal base of 1, i.e.: > > session.createNativeQuery( "... where a.name = ?" ).setParameter( 1, > "Steve" ); > session.createNativeQuery( "... where a.name = ?1" ).setParameter( 1, > "Steve" ); > > The only down side to this is yet another upgrade concern for users. > > Thoughts? > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 12:15 PM Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> > wrote: > > > +1 I see no problem either. > > > > > > On 17 November 2017 at 15:57, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> > wrote: > > > Actually its possible that the TCK always tested it and merging > > > `javax.persistence.Query` and `org.hibernate.query.Query` may be the > > > culprit. But either way, the net result is the same... > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 8:44 AM Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> > > wrote: > > > > > >> I wont bore everyone with the history here, but long story short is > that > > >> we need to start treating JPA "positional" parameters as positional in > > the > > >> `javax.persistence.Parameter#getPosition` sense. Even though there > is > > >> nothing positional about JPA's positional parameters, this has moved > > from a > > >> philosophical discussion to a practical one as the JPA 2.2 TCK is > > testing > > >> this, whereas older ones did not > > >> > > >> To do that however, we need to drop our older positional parameter > > >> support. That feature has been deprecated for quite some time now. > > Unless > > >> there are objections, I will plan on dropping that in 5.3 > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > hibernate-dev mailing list > > > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
